Market Disintermediation and Producer Value Capture: The Case of Fair Trade Coffee in Nicaragua, Peru, and Guatemala

Arnould, Eric J.; Plastina, Alejandro; Ball, Dwayne

doi:10.1016/s1571-5027(07)20014-2

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taylor et al (2005), for example, found a significant contribution of FT in Mexico and Central America for living conditions and the emergence of governance arrangements, but also noted problems in formal structures related to communication and representation. Arnould et al (2007) compared FT coffee farmers with non‐participants in Nicaragua, Peru and Guatemala, with data showing ‘modest but measurable’ better scores on some indicators, though on others there was no difference. Moreover, Ruben et al (2009), who analysed Fairtrade and non‐Fairtrade, found that non‐Fairtrade coffee farmers had higher net household incomes in both Peru and Costa Rica, while on some other aspects, particularly organizational capacity, wealth and access to capital, Fairtrade scored better.…”

Section: Is There a ‘Best’ Standard: What Do We Know About Impact?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 2Producer groups pay a fee for certification which ranges between $2500 and $10 000 depending on size and time needed (http://www.transfairusa.org/content/resources/faq-advanced.php#fees [2 April 2010]). Being certified does not include a guarantee that producers can sell their coffee to the Fairtrade market on Fairtrade terms, and in reality most producer groups only sell part of their coffee under these conditions (see, e.g., Arnould et al , 2007; Taylor et al , 2005). Estimates based on an international source of the umbrella Fairtrade Labelling Organisations indicate that this is just 10–20%, with the rest being sold for regular market prices (Slob, 2006, p. 32).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mainstreaming sustainable coffee

Kolk

2011

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This overview article examines the various dimensions of sustainable coffee as well as the actors involved and their perceptions on how to advance the market from niche to mainstream. The issues at hand are very complex, with different types of coffee producers, manufacturing/roasting companies and consumers, and a variety of standards, all with their own peculiarities and views on what is the best approach, and characterised by a divergent potential for 'scaling up'. Policy-makers, managers and NGOs thus face difficult choices as to which path to pursue as there is no clear consensus on a concrete 'solution' to this 'wicked problem'. The article analyses the market for sustainable coffee, the different types of certified coffee available and their peculiarities considering production and supply perspectives, in relation to consumers who buy the final product. Implications are discussed as well, in the context of complexity and confusion, and the need for more complementarity. KEY WORDS

show abstract

Section: Is There a ‘Best’ Standard: What Do We Know About Impact?mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mainstreaming sustainable coffee

Kolk

2011

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cooperative societies aggregate people, resources and capital into economic units to provide opportunities for farmers to raise their productivity and income [26]. Participation in a cooperative society improves productivity by influencing a household's propensity to adopt newer farming practices and technologies via the exchange of ideas with other group members [10,[27][28][29]. Also, many studies, for instance, [30][31][32] agree that participation in cooperative societies improve the commercialisation behaviour of farmers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The simultaneous impact of access to credit and cooperative services on cocoa productivity in South-western Nigeria

Ozcan

Ogundeji

2022

Agric & Food Secur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cocoa contributes immensely to Nigeria’s economy; it is about 40% of agricultural exports and it is the main source of livelihood for over 200,000 rural households. However, its productivity has remained low in recent years compared to other cocoa-producing countries such as Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana. Low cocoa productivity is attributed to many factors, which include lack of access to credit and cooperative services. However, empirical information on the simultaneous impact of credit access and membership of cooperative society on cocoa productivity is still very scanty. This paper aims at evaluating the impacts of access to credit service, cooperative service, and simultaneous access to credit and cooperative services on cocoa productivity in South-western Nigeria. Method A multistage sampling procedure was employed to select 300 cocoa farmers for the study. The endogenous switching regression (ESRM) and the inverse probability-weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) models were used to analyse the data. Results In terms of simultaneous access to credit and cooperative services, age, education, gender, and size of household significantly influence the probability of farmers having simultaneous access to credit and cooperative services. The results of the second stage of the ESRM showed that age, size of household, years of education, and years of experience significantly influence cocoa productivity among farmers who have access to credit and cooperative services. However, age, size of household, size of farm and asset significantly influence the productivity of farmers who do not have access to credit and cooperative services. Average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) revealed that farmers who simultaneously have access to credit and cooperative services achieve significantly higher productivity than farmers who have access to either credit or cooperative services and the set of farmers who do not have access to either credit or cooperative services. Conclusion The study concluded that simultaneous access to credit and cooperative services positively impacted cocoa productivity. Farmers who have simultaneous access to credit and cooperative services achieve significantly higher productivity than farmers who have access to either credit or cooperative services or those that do not have access to these services at all. The study recommends that any agricultural productivity-targeted programmes in Nigeria consider farmers’ simultaneous access to credit and cooperative services.

show abstract

“…Such 'innovation networks' have always existed but have only recently been theorised as a 'new form of organisation within knowledge production for the exploration of synergies and the exploitation of complementarities ' (Pyka and Küppers, 2002) in an innovation process. Farmers may be part of larger innovation networks, but also be part of self-help approaches, such as producer organisations, which are a collective mechanism for farmers to pool resources to benefit from economies of scale and overcome challenges such as lack of technologies or credit, limited access to markets, and poor infrastructure for processing (Ton, 2008, Arnould et al, 2007, Mendoza and Thelen, 2008. Cooperatives are a specialised type of producer organisation that '…is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise' (International Co-operative Alliance, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambidexterity and mobile hubs as the interfaces for orchestrating multi-level innovation networks and fostering capabilities in innovation processes: evidence from agricultural netchains in Sub-Saharan Africa

Omta¹,

Trienekens²,

Perdomo³

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Goldin and Winters, 1992). Structural adjustment policies often tied aid to the privatisation of the delivery of services in sub-Saharan Africa. With a weak private sector many nongovernmental organisations-both international and local-were founded or expanded to fill the gap (Bratton, 1989). Systems of innovation therefore changed from centralised systems of national agricultural research institutions and extension services to a variety of service providers, with the entry of many new research and development stakeholders (Anandajayasekeram, 2011). In Uganda for instance, decentralisation reform has transferred the coordination of developmental projects from central to local governments. The former top-down approach in Uganda has changed to a bottom-up approach that has to be coordinated with community international and even virtually, and within value chains to form 'netchains' (Lazzarini et al., 2001). Netchains include farmers, researchers, traders, transporters, processors, finance institutions, international non-governmental organisations. 1.2 Innovation networks tackling food insecurity and poverty of family farmers in sub-Saharan Africa Over the past decade there have been an increasing number of initiatives that are testing strategies or intervention approaches to enhance farmers' capabilities (See case studies of CFS, 2015). These initiatives involve different configurations and levels of innovation networks, and also aim to foster some capabilities of family farms. Some initiatives seek to develop organisational and knowledge capabilities like in Farmer Field School networks, or Village Information and Communication Centers (Pérez Perdomo et al., 2009), in which farmers have the opportunity of learning by doing and sharing knowledge. In these initiatives farmers join "communities of practice" (de Jager et al., 2009, Pérez Perdomo et al., 2009, Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) as part of local small innovation networks. Chapter 1 5 Initiatives based on the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) that combine information systems using internet platforms and mobile phones, might foster information and communication capabilities of farmers to share market information and prices of commodities. Mobile phones are facilitating linkages of farmers to local, national and international markets. In the Philippines, Uganda, South Africa and Kenya 1 farmers get information by voice and text messages on markets and prices, daily or seasonal weather forecasts, the production of pesticides and even use internet for sending money to relatives. These new ways of sharing knowledge and social interaction mediated by the use of ICTs facilitate more participative and open approaches for fostering capabilities for innovation. While an increasing number of farmers have access to ICTs due to ubiquity of media and access to the technology, there are still factors that limit their use; such as a limited knowledge in the use of ICTs, costs of services of internet, and language limitations (Pérez Perdomo, 2003, Parkinso...

show abstract

Market Disintermediation and Producer Value Capture: The Case of Fair Trade Coffee in Nicaragua, Peru, and Guatemala

Abstract: Does participation in Fair Trade coffee marketing deliver added value to small-scale

Cited by 11 publications

References 15 publications

Mainstreaming sustainable coffee

Mainstreaming sustainable coffee

The simultaneous impact of access to credit and cooperative services on cocoa productivity in South-western Nigeria

Ambidexterity and mobile hubs as the interfaces for orchestrating multi-level innovation networks and fostering capabilities in innovation processes: evidence from agricultural netchains in Sub-Saharan Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About